lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on May 9, 2024 18:12:16 GMT
So found this nice image of the Mackensen-class battlecruiser on Twitter (X).  One of the posters asked would she be comparable to the Hood, a answer was: Weaker. Hood was Admiral class that was designed as response to Mackensen. Armor on both is almost identical, Admiral class has bigger guns 15inch vs 13.8, but German guns fire faster. Main advantage of Hood is 32kt speed VS 28kt (Designed speed)Is this true, would Hood beat a Mackensen-class. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 9, 2024 18:31:27 GMT
I think the Hood was a bit slower when initially build as a lot of extra armour was added - although I have seen it suggested that much of this turned out to be redundant as the additional weight submerged a lot of the main belt. However with the Greenboy and later shell designs which corrected the main problem of British shells at Jutland - the tendency to trigger too soon at sharper angles and hence not penetrate deep into the ships inner's before exploding.
The other thing is that, for the initial design the Mackensen would have been largely coal fueled which would cause problems compared to the oil fueled Hood. You need a larger crew due to the need for plenty of stokers. Also the Hood will be able to maintain speed longer because they will get tired in an extended operation and also ash from the furnances will build up. Also if assuming their both completed during an extended WWI Germany wouldn't have access to the good coal Britain had so that would also impact its performance.
However the Mackensen was a decent design with good armour so it could be a tough ship to defeat and especially a 1 to 1 battle can always be dicey and uncertain as so many variables can chance things dramatically.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on May 9, 2024 18:36:20 GMT
I think the Hood was a bit slower when initially build as a lot of extra armour was added - although I have seen it suggested that much of this turned out to be redundant as the additional weight submerged a lot of the main belt. However with the Greenboy and later shell designs which corrected the main problem of British shells at Jutland - the tendency to trigger too soon at sharper angles and hence not penetrate deep into the ships inner's before exploding. The other thing is that, for the initial design the Mackensen would have been largely coal fueled which would cause problems compared to the oil fueled Hood. You need a larger crew due to the need for plenty of stokers. Also the Hood will be able to maintain speed longer because they will get tired in an extended operation and also ash from the furnances will build up. Also if assuming their both completed during an extended WWI Germany wouldn't have access to the good coal Britain had so that would also impact its performance. However the Mackensen was a decent design with good armour so it could be a tough ship to defeat and especially a 1 to 1 battle can always be dicey and uncertain as so many variables can chance things dramatically.
Was the Hood in responds to the Mackensen-class as i read on Mackensen-class Wikipedia page. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 10, 2024 12:22:33 GMT
I think the Hood was a bit slower when initially build as a lot of extra armour was added - although I have seen it suggested that much of this turned out to be redundant as the additional weight submerged a lot of the main belt. However with the Greenboy and later shell designs which corrected the main problem of British shells at Jutland - the tendency to trigger too soon at sharper angles and hence not penetrate deep into the ships inner's before exploding. The other thing is that, for the initial design the Mackensen would have been largely coal fueled which would cause problems compared to the oil fueled Hood. You need a larger crew due to the need for plenty of stokers. Also the Hood will be able to maintain speed longer because they will get tired in an extended operation and also ash from the furnances will build up. Also if assuming their both completed during an extended WWI Germany wouldn't have access to the good coal Britain had so that would also impact its performance. However the Mackensen was a decent design with good armour so it could be a tough ship to defeat and especially a 1 to 1 battle can always be dicey and uncertain as so many variables can chance things dramatically.
Was the Hood in responds to the Mackensen-class as i read on Mackensen-class Wikipedia page.
I think it was more that other than Renown and Repulse, which Fisher shipped in under the radar so to speak as very large light cruisers, Britain hadn't started a new capital ship class since the R class in 1914. With the wartime losses and also reports of continued construction in Germany it was felt necessary to build new ships. The 4 ships of the Hood class were initially larger versions of the Renown's with an extra twin 15" turret, better speed and a bit better armour. After the Battle of Jutland which resulted in a review of British ship designs they were redrawn with changes, mainly increased armour which took the tonnage from ~35,000 t0 ~41,000 but work was further delayed with the U boat threat taking up more and more resources. Post-war there were some suggestions of scrapping the ships on the slipway for better design but Hood, the one most advanced was completed.
As such reports of continued construction in Germany - although that was increasingly stalled due to the priorities given to the land war and then U boats - definitely played a role in the decision to design and start the construction but how much we may never know for sure.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Jul 24, 2024 12:57:40 GMT
Can't see the image.... An interesting post by the late, great Bob Henneman on caliber and size: www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/viewtopic.php?p=11158#p11158The Germans actually lagged behind when it came to fitting battlecruisers with battleship armament. Moltke was laid down with 11-inch guns about the same time as the Helgoland BBs were laid down with 12-inch guns, and Seydlitz was laid down with 11-inch guns when the contemporary Kaisers had 12-inch guns, so it was not terribly unusual for the Makensens to have smaller guns that the Bayerns.
The jump in gun caliber is not as easy as it sounds, nor is it cheap, as the size of the ship grows considerably with each increase in gun size. So a jump in gun size was taken only reluctantly, usually to match something the British had already done.
The Derfflingers went to 12-inch guns from Seydlitzs 11-inch guns, a difference of just one inch. Yet they grew by 3000 tons, and cost 23% more than Seydlitz. The jump to Makensens 13.78-inch guns from Derffingers 12-inch guns cost another 3000 tons, and another 23% cost increase. The following Ersatz Yorck class ships were yet another 3300 tons larger over that, thanks to an increase to the 15-inch gun, and were projected to cost nearly 30% more than the Makensens.
So a jump from the Derfflingers right to the Ersatz Yorck and their 15-inch guns would have cost 6200 tons (a 20% jump in size) and over 50% more in terms of $$$. Thats one heck of a jump in size and cost for just one class. It also would have made them 25% larger than the next largest ships in the German fleet, requiring lord knows how much of an expenditure for new slipways, docks, etc. This was a hard pill to swallow during wartime, especially as there was no perceived need for ships that large: when the Makensens were designed the latest British battlecruisers carried 13.5-inch guns, so a 13.78-inch gun was more than sufficient. It was not until the Renown Class and their 15-inch guns came to light that Germany designed 15-inch gunned battlecruisers, ships so large and expensive there was little chance they would ever actually be built.
So I guess the short answer is that the Germans thought the 13.78-inch gun was plenty large enough to match what Britain had, and anything larger was overly big and expensive and could be postponed until it was absolutely necessary. Had the German known that the British would commission 15-inch gunned battlecruisers before the Makensens even got off the building slips, they might have decided to bite the bullet and jump right to the 15-inch gunned ships. But I guess it really didn't matter: incomplete 15-inch gunned ships are no more powerful than incomplete 13.78-inch gunned ships, are they?Recommend the whole thread; there are some interesting posts there, including Bob's comments on the RN BCs. The E. Mackensens and E . Yorcks would have had good lines. Regards, |
|
